BY THE COURT AND THE CROWN

Section 810 And Common Law Peace Bonds Are Used To Impose

PUNISHMENT WHERE NO CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED

HERE IS THE OFFICIAL EXCUSE:

Section 810 peace bonds are preventative court orders requiring an individual to agree to specific conditions to keep the peace. These instruments are available to police and the courts to protect the public before a criminal offence has been committed.

It is not necessary for an offender to have committed a criminal offence in order for a judge to make an order against the individual.

Section 810.2 (1)

Any person who fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit a serious personal injury offence, as that expression is defined in section 752, may, with the consent of the Attorney General, lay an information before a provincial court judge, whether or not the person or persons in respect of whom it is feared that the offence will be committed are named.

Section 810.1 (1)

Any person who fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit an offence under section 151, 152, 155 or 159, subsection 160(2) or (3), section 163.1, 170, 171 or 172.1, subsection 173(2) or section 271, 272 or 273, in respect of one or more persons who are under the age of 16 years, may lay an information before a provincial court judge, whether or not the person or persons in respect of whom it is feared that the offence will be committed are named.

Common Law Peace Bonds

The courts have wide ranging powers to impose a common law peace bond on Canadians, regardless of whether or not a crime has been committed.

Most often these are imposed based on the (fabricated and delusional or vindictive) allegations of women who are out to get even with an ex spouse.

Peace Bonds started around 1892 as a codified version of the common law peace bond available to magistrates to order individuals likely to commit property offences to "keep the peace".

Peace Bonds have expanded and now also target individuals (i.e. men) who might commit violent or sexual offences. Does not matter if they have or have not committed a crime. Men are being punished because someone says they MIGHT do something. Guess who is making these accusations? No prize for right answer.

Both 810.1 and 810.2 are supposedly designed to be preventative and not punitive. That is nonsense. Any restriction on your liberty is punitive.

IF YOU DO NOT SIGN WHEN A COURT IMPOSES A PEACE BOND YOU WILL BE JAILED

Refusal to sign a section 810 bond can result in imprisonment for up to 12 months. It is a criminal offence to violate the conditions of a section 810 peace bond.

A section 810 peace bond can be issued for up to a year. A common-law peace bond can be imposed for longer periods.

Signing a peace bond or recognizance does not give rise to a criminal record. But the police know about it and it will remain forever in the police files.

According to the Crown Policy Manual, a peace bond will be accepted as an appropriate remedy in a domestic assault matter only in "the most unusual circumstances.

But the law is not being followed.

The court will often impose this peace bond just because the Crown asks for it. Evidence or proof is not needed. This is not a trivial matter. If you refuse to sign, you could be jailed for up to 12 months (or until you sign???)

Peace Bonds

A peace bond or recognizance is a court order requiring the person to whom it is directed (defendant) to keep the peace and be of good behavior.

In minor assault cases, the Crown might withdraw the charge upon the accused person entering a peace bond.

Conditions may be attached to ensure good conduct. It is usually required that the defendant avoid contact with and not go near the home of the person for whose protection the bond is issued. There is usually a requirement that the defendant not possess any firearms, ammunition or explosives.

A peace bond may be issued under section 810 of the Criminal Code or under the court's common law jurisdiction to bind a party over to keep the peace.

Under the Criminal Code, any person who fears on reasonable grounds that another person will hurt him or her, or his or her spouse or child, or damage his or her property can apply to a justice to have that person enter a peace bond. If the court is satisfied there are reasonable grounds for the applicant's fear, it will order the defendant to enter a recognizance to keep the peace.

Peace Bonds are bad enough but Canada has reinstated debtors prisons for men who cannot pay child support.

HERE IS THE COURT'S POSITION

The principles applicable to section 810 peace bond applications were set out in a case called R. v. Soungie, [2003] AJ No. 899 (Alta. PC).

In that case, the Court held:

[46] Let me set out in point form the principles applicable to s. 810 applications:

(1) Section 810 is preventive in nature protecting the applicant in appropriate circumstances from future harm to the applicant, the applicant’s spouse, the applicant’s common law partner, the applicant’s children, or future damage to the applicant’s property.

The Court is allowed to intervene to prevent a breach of the peace prior to an actual offence being committed.

(2) Section 810 restrains the liberty of the defendant to live his or her life free from restraint of that liberty.

(3) The Judge must balance the two competing interests in determining whether to place the defendant on a recognizance. That is, the Judge must balance the right of the defendant to privacy or to be left alone against the right of the applicant to a protective intervention in appropriate circumstances. Certainly, the Judge must be cautious in exercising discretion to affect the liberty of the subject, but this caution must be tempered with a view to the protection provided to the applicant where grounds have demonstrated the need for the recognizance.

(4) The applicant must actually fear that the defendant will cause personal injury to the applicant, the applicant’s spouse, the applicant’s common law partner, the applicant’s children, or will cause damage to the applicant’s property.

(5) The Judge must find that the applicant’s fears are reasonable, i.e., that an objective person armed with the same knowledge as the applicant would agree that the applicant’s fear are reasonable. The reasonable fear must be triggered by some action of the defendant.

(6) Evidence of the defendant’s previous misconduct is admissible to determine the basis for the belief’s held by the applicant. This evidence can be used by the Judge in determining whether the applicant’s fears are reasonable.

(7) The Judge is not asked to predict future behaviour; rather, the Judge must be satisfied from the evidence the likelihood of future harm or damage. The quality and strength of the evidence must be sufficient to satisfy this likelihood.

(8) The onus of persuasion is upon the applicant. The applicant must satisfy the Judge on the balance of probabilities of the grounds for the issuance of a recognizance.